State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd.& Another vs Bireswar Bandyopadhyay on 18 December, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/683/2019 ( Date of Filing : 19 Sep 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/08/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/413/2015 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd.& Another 52/2, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700 016. 2. Indrajit Sarkar, Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd. 4A, Anil Roy Road, P.S. - Lake, Kolkata - 700 029. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Bireswar Bandyopadhyay B-12/3, Karunamoyee Estate, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Prabir Basu, Mr. Tarun Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. Bibhas Mondal, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 18 Dec 2023 Final Order / Judgement Hon'ble Sri Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
The Learned Advocates for both sides are present. Heard them.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order no. 8 dated 05.08.2019 passed by Learned DCDRC, unit 1 allowing CC/413/2015 on contest against OPs and directing the OPs jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- payable within 30 days along with default clause for payment of interest, the appellant preferred this appeal.
The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the moot question is whether the complainant is a consumer or not. In this context he drew my attention to page Nos. 113, 114 and 115 of the Annexure of appeal. It appears from page 114 of the memo of appeal that Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd. issued a Ch. Of Rs. 4200059/- to the complainant. It appears from page 113 and letter of acknowledgement issued by Voyagers Club that the aforesaid Cheque was acknowledged and encashed on 20.12.2013.
The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that as the entire amount was refunded the complainant is not at all a consumer because the privity of contract ended.
In this context, the Learned Advocate referred to a decision of Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2015 (1) CPR 62 NC. It is held in the aforesaid decision that the privity of contraction or relationship of consumer comes to an end the moment the complainant accepts the amount unconditionally.
Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that due to act of negligence on part of the OP the complainant was deprived of presenting a paper in an international convention, which caused mental agony and loss of opportunity for him to build his brilliant career, The Learned Advocate submits that as the complainant got back the entire amount prior to filing of the case, so he is not a consumer.
The Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Although the aforesaid amount was paid by the opposite party, the appellant, but it was not done after arranging a press conference disclosing the fact of the case to the press. It was done under the pressure from the media.
The Learned Advocate for the appellant referred to a decision reported in 2016 (4) CRR 335(NC) wherein it has been observed that in absence of binding contract between the parties, the complainant could not be said to be a consumer.
He referred another decision reported in 2017 (1) CRR 823 (NC) wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that without any privity of agreement between the parties the consumer complaint is not maintainable. He drew our attention to letter dated 19.10.2013 issued by Bireswar Bandyopadhyay to Mr. Chun Kwan Tian, Ambassador of Taiwan.
It appears from the letter that the complainant applied for a visa with documents, but the visa agent of Delhi informed him on the previous day that visa office returned the passport and refused to issue any visa to him.
Our attention was drawn to a letter dated 03.12.2013 issued by Sri Biswajit Sengupta, Branch Manager, Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Bireswar Bandyopadhyay. It appears from the letter that Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd. were not liable for non issuance of visa by the Embassy, but as a gesture for their goodwill they returned a cheque bearing No. 014107 dated 03.12.2013 for Rs. 49270/- which was encashed.
In reply the respondent drew our attention to Annexure 46 being a letter dated 29.10.2013 wherein the Taipei Secretariat communicated to the complainant that complainant did not submit complete application. However, the Taipei Authority asked the complainant to submit application, but he did not submit the invitation letter issued in favour of the complainant. But the invitation is at Annexure- B. So, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and no interference is required with it.
Accordingly, the appeal No. A/683/2019 is dismissed on contest.
The impugned order is upheld.
Order of stay, if there is any in connection with the present appeal stands vacated.
There shall be no order as to the costs.
Let a copy of the judgement be sent to Hon'ble DCDRC, Unit- I for compliance, [HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE] MEMBER